On 5/17/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Jaime Casanova" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> (No, I'm not particularly in favor of the BY feature mentioned upthread,
>> either.)
> mmm... and why is that?
Essentially because it's not in the upstream language. Oracle could
come out with the same feature next week, only they use STEP or some
other syntax for it, and then we'd have a mess on our hands. If the
feature were sufficiently compelling use-wise then I'd be willing to
risk that, but it doesn't seem to me to be more than a marginal
notational improvement.
regards, tom lane
good point... just one comment, if you disallow the ability to modify
the loop variable the BY clause won't be a "notational" improvement
anymore (but it still will be a marginal one, must admit)... so i
think that the painless path is to do nothing at all...
no BY clause, no disallow the ability to modify the loop variable...
--
regards,
Jaime Casanova
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the universe trying
to produce bigger and better idiots.
So far, the universe is winning."
Richard Cook
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
